Recent Posts

Yahoo retiring user IDs: why you shouldn't worry

A couple weeks ago, Yahoo announced that they were retiring abandoned user IDs. This has been causing quite a bit of concern among email marketers because they’re not sure how this is going to affect email delivery. This is a valid concern, but more recent information suggests that Yahoo! isn’t actually retiring abandoned email addresses.
You have to remember, there are Yahoo! userIDs that are unconnected to email addresses. People have been able to register all sorts of Yahoo! accounts without activating an associated email account: Flickr accounts, Yahoo groups accounts, Yahoo sports accounts, Yahoo news accounts, etc,. Last week, a Yahoo spokesperson told the press that only 7% of the inactive accounts had associated email addresses.
Turning that around, 93% of the accounts currently being deactivated and returned to the user pool have never accepted an email. Those addresses will have hard bounced every time a sender tried to send mail to that address.
What about the other 7%? The other 7% will have been inactive for at least a year. That’s a year’s worth of mail that had the opportunity to hard bounce with a 550 “user unknown.”
If you’re still concerned about recycled Yahoo userIDs then take action.

Timely and appropriate mail

I woke up this morning to an exploding twitter and FB feeds with lots of friends cheering the defeat of DOMA and Prop 8. Apparently some companies are getting into the act as well.
(Behind a cut because some of this may be slightly NSFW in some places)

Spammers already abusing Vine

Spammers have already figured out how to abuse the new twitter video service (VINE) to make money. I wish I could say I was surprised, but spammers (and scammers) are some of the earliest adopters of technology out there. They adopt it and try to extract as much money as possible before the property owners can catch up and implement anti-abuse technology.
Too few companies actually build products with anti-abuse technology built in. This costs them and the victims money.

Bad unsubscribe processes

We recently renewed our support contract with VMWare. It’s a weirdly complicated system, in that we can’t buy directly from VMWare, but have to buy through one of their resellers. In this case, we purchased the original hardware from Dell, so we renewed our contract through Dell.
Dell sends my email address over to VMWare as part of the transaction.
My only role in this is as CFO. I approve the purchase and pay the bill. I don’t do anything technical with the license.
The email failures start when VMWare decides that I need to receive mail about some user group meetings they’re holding all over the US. First off, I’m not the right person to be sending this mail to inside our company. I’m the billing contact, not the user contact. Then, they send me mail about meetings all over the US, when they know exactly where I’m located. Would it be so hard to do a semi-personalized version that highlighted the meetings in my local area then pointing out the other locations? Apparently, yes, it is so hard.
The biggest failures, though are in the unsubscribe process.

The unsubscribe page is no big deal. I get to unsub from all VMWare communications, and submit that request without having to figure out what my VMWare password is or anything.
After I hit submit, I’m taken to this page.

Wait? What?
“Thank you for registering?” I didn’t register! I don’t want you to contact me. Plus, this is a HP co-branded page when I’m not a customer of HP. VMWare knows this, they know they got my address from Dell.
The biggest problem is that I’m not sure that my address was actually unsubscribed. I suspect that someone copied a form from elsewhere on the site to use as an unsubscribe form. This person forgot to change the link after the “submit” button was clicked. But what else did they forget to change? Is the unsubscribe actually registered in the database?
I suppose only time will tell if VMWare actually processed my unsubscribe. If they didn’t they’re technically in violation of CAN SPAM.
The lesson, though, is someone should check unsubscribe forms. Someone in marketing should own the unsubscribe process, and that includes confirming that unsubscribe pages work well enough.

Feedback from recipients

Please Don’t Add Me to Your Email List
Email marketing wisdom from Forbes and someone who spends a lot of time networking and handing out business cards.

Weird mail problems today? Clear your DNS cache!

A number of sources are reporting this morning that there was a problem with some domains in the .com zone yesterday. These problems caused the DNS records of these domains to become corrupted. The records are now fixed. Some of the domains, however, had long TTLs. If a recursive resolver pulled the corrupted records, it could take up to 2 days for the new records to naturally age out.
Folks can fix this by flushing their DNS cache, thus forcing the recursive resolver to pull the uncorrupted records.
EDIT: Cisco has published some more information about the problem. ‘Hijacking’ of DNS Records from Network Solutions

Fake DNSBLs

Spamhaus ~~recently~~ announced a few years ago that they have discovered a company that is pirating various blocklists, relabeling them and selling access to them. Not only is the company distributing the zones, they’re also running a “pay to delist” scheme whereby senders are told if they pay money, they’ll be removed from the lists.
The fake company does remove the listing from the fake zones, but does nothing to remove the IP from the original sender. This company has been caught in the past and was blocked from downloading Spamhaus hosted zones in the past, but have apparently worked around the blocks and are continuing to pirate the zone data.
It’s not clear how many customers the blocklist has, although one ESP rep told me they were seeing bounces referencing nszones.com at some typo domains.
No legitimate DNSBL charges for delisting. While I, and other people, do consult for senders listed on the major blocklists, this is not a pay for removal. What I do is act as a mediator and translator, helping senders understand what they need to do to get delisted and communicating that back to the blocklist. I work with senders to identify good, clean addresses, bad address segments and then suggest appropriate ways to comply with the blocklist requirements.

Papa John's settles texting suit

Last year a class action law suit was filed against Papa John’s for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for texts received by Papa John’s customers. Customers allege they never opted in to receive promotional text from the company. Papa John’s claim that they didn’t send the marketing, but instead was sent by third party contractors.
A blog post on lawyers.com says that Papa John’s settled the case for $16.5 million.

What is a dot-zero listing?

Some email blacklists focus solely on allowing their users to block mail from problematic sources. Others aim to reduce the amount of bad mail sent and prefer senders clean up their practices, rather than just blocking them wholesale. The Spamhaus SBL is one of the second type, using listings both to block mail permanently from irredeemable spammers and as short term encouragement for a sender to fix their practices.
All a blacklists infrastructure – and the infrastructure of related companies, such as reputation monitoring services – is based on identifying senders by their IP addresses and recording their misbehaviour as records associated with those IP addresses. For example, one test entry for the SBL is the IP address 192.203.178.107, and the associated record is SBL230. Because of that they tend not to have a good way to deal with entities that aren’t associated with an IP address range.
Sometimes a blacklist operator would like put a sender on notice that the mail they’re emitting is a problem, and that they should take steps to fix that, but they don’t want to actually block that senders mail immediately. How to do that, within the constraints of the IP address based blacklist infrastructure?
IP addresses are assigned to users in contiguous blocks and there’s always a few wasted, as you can’t use the first or last addresses in that range (for technical / historical reasons). Our main network consists of 128 IP addresses, 184.105.179.128 to 184.105.179.255, but we can’t put servers on 184.105.179.128 (as it’s our router) or 184.105.179.255 (as it’s the “broadcast address” for our subnet).
So if Spamhaus wanted to warn us that we were in danger of having our mail blocked, they could fire a shot across our bow without risk of blocking any mail right now by listing the first address in our subnet – 184.105.179.128 – knowing that we don’t have a server running on that address.
For any organization with more than 128 IP addresses – which includes pretty much all ISPs and ESPs – IP addresses are assigned such that the first IP address in the range ends in a zero, so that warning listing will be for an address “x.y.z.0” – it’s a dot-zero listing.

CAN SPAM ruling against whois privacy protection

A number of bloggers (Venkat B., John L. and Rebecca T.) have mentioned ZooBuh, Inc. v. Better Broadcasting, LLC (No.: 2:11cv00516-DN (D. Utah May 31, 2013)) recently.
In summary of the case is that ZooBuh is an ISP that has sued Better Broadcasting for spamming in violation of CAN SPAM. Their case hinged on the receipt of more than 12,000 emails from Better Broadcasting, LLC. ZooBuh said these emails caused the following harm